The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on April 3, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, O’Connell and Fillippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant two of the three requested variances and to hold this case pending review issue of sprinkler coverage in the electrical vault with representatives of the local electric utility.  The motion was unanimous and the file was held open.  

During a follow-up hearing, on May 8, 2001, the Board approved the Applicant’s request to issue a separate Decision, reflecting the two variances granted on April 3, 2001, prior to the final resolution of the third issue of sprinkler coverage in the electrical vault. A motion to approve the Applicant’s request was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Fillippi with Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Richard, Fillippi, and Burlingame voting in favor. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

This facility was previously before the Board and variances were previously granted in file numbers 990292 and 950218.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact, and referenced documents, in the above decisions as its initial findings of fact in this decision. The Board further finds that the Applicant is in the process of retrofitting this facility with an approved sprinkler system pursuant to a previously approved plan of action.

In view of the above-referenced plan of action for the eventual full sprinkler coverage of this facility, the Applicant has requested temporary variances to maintain two structural conditions that are considered deficiencies in the absence of a full coverage sprinkler system. Once the building is considered fully sprinkled, the variances will be moot as the existing structural conditions will be considered to be in compliance with the code.  A final issue, involving sprinkler coverage of the electrical vault, shall be separately addressed by the Board during a future hearing. It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.

Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term “approved”, as used herein, is defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Applicant’s first variance request shall be considered during a subsequent hearing before the Board.  During this hearing, the Applicant, the Providence Fire Marshal and the local electrical utility company shall be allowed to present testimony and/or a plan of action addressing the requested sprinkler coverage of the electrical vault in this facility.

2. The Board hereby grants a temporary variance from the provisions of section 26-2.5.3 of NFPA 101, 1997 edition, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a common path of travel, in excess of 75 feet, during that period of time in which this facility is being retrofitted for full sprinkler coverage.

3. The Board hereby grants a temporary variance from the provisions of section 26-3.6.1 of NFPA 101, 1997 edition, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the corridors of this facility, during that period of time in which this facility is being retrofitted for full sprinkler coverage.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

This Decision represents a comprehensive, integrated plan of fire safety for the above-captioned facility under the above-cited use or occupancy.  Accordingly, every variance granted is conditioned upon the Applicant’s timely and continued compliance with all of the directives of the Board. Every variance granted is further conditioned upon the continued use or occupancy of this facility under the above-cited classification reviewed by the Board. ( See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).

Failure of the Applicant to initially comply with the full Decision of the Board, within the stated time frame, shall void all variances granted herein. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18)  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to have vested in the above-captioned facility.  As long as this facility is in continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above-cited variances shall remain with this facility in the absence of any change in use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  

Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Board’s Decision shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such change creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.1-6, all variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).

The Applicant may appeal the Board’s Decision, within thirty (30) days of 
the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in the Sixth division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].